The Historical States Of Moral Interaction

     It is helpful to instill universal forgiveness for human frailty upon understanding that certain stages of moral development dictate different moral actions of their day. Competition was once the moral choice, for biological predestiny utilizes competition to effect human evolutionary movement. We will later discuss this in detail, but for now understand that the only true original sin is in lingering within early stages of human moral development.

Where once life was a struggle for the survival of the human species, it has evolved to a point where fighting for one's daily food is no longer a sole or even primary activity.

     Biological predestiny is hardwired into all species as an orienting mechanism, each interacting in the overall evolutionary process. The essential dynamic is how an individual organism is moved from within to survive in any given environment. This movement might come from generic predisposition or adaptive mutation in other organisms, but in humans, it comes from free will. With all humans buzzing about with everyone pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, there are bound to be some bumping into one another. When this happens they can willfully choose to either interact competitively or cooperatively. Free will is meant to be guided by the innate morality within the wisdom of spirit, which means to operate within all three purposes, and act upon the emotional signals in their multiple levels of meaning.

When a great number of people occupy a dance floor, each couple can start competing for available space by banging into other couples OR all couples can start coordinating their movements so that contact can be reduced to a minimum and not considered to be threatening behavior. Only in a dance for "Squares" is it necessary to have a source of outside control.
        

     There is then a natural moral progression from the singular self-concept to the plural connected self-concept. At each stage of moral development there will be certain needs coming to the fore, as well as an evolving understanding of the meaning of the emotional signals. Until humans awaken to the power of free will, they are safeguarded against their ignorant choices of mind by the self-preservationary reactions of body---serving the first stage of human purpose.

As technology advances and weapons of war become more sophisticated, the need for resolving the proverbial "bumping into one another" in an agreed upon fashion, becomes increasingly essential to self-preservation. Clearly, the old guidelines of inter-relationship will not suffice.

                              Caveman Morality

At this first stage, humans respond exactly like other animals, influenced first and foremost by emotional memory and hardwired instinctual responses. This relates to the human pre-cultural "caveman" level of morality. Humans at this stage are likened unto singular, lone wolves, competing against one another for scarce resources, be they food, land, power, money, etc. With competition, there is a win-lose outcome: one will get all of the resource, and the other will get none. At this stage, fear and anger are the predominant motivators, fight and flight are the common actions, as the stronger often overpowers the weaker to the victor goes the spoils. At this level self-preservation is the singular purpose, the level of conscience now known as "selfish".

There are still many (too, many) in our society today whose conduct would have a certain commonality matching the above described characteristics. In fact, the corporate mentality would likely come the closest. On a singular level, many women might recognize a former or current suitor.

     At this early, pre-cultural stage, competition is the right and good choice of action, due to the fact that the individual needs take precedence over the group needs. The emotional signals are interpreted to ensure survival and that the basic individual needs for power, freedom and creative expression are honored. Once these needs are accommodated in the mind and world of such humans, then the other needs can come to the forefront of consciousness and motivate further evolution.

Thus, in some ancient but more sophisticated cultures, even though technology had not come close to what we have today, there grew a very in-depth understanding of the arts. The Greeks had finely tuned the mind and what followed then served as testimony to what could be accomplished, when leisure was achieved. Unfortunately, a certain level of social "slavery" was necessary to maintain that state of leisure for the selected few.

     For competition is not the only choice when humans interact. The resource can go to one, or to another, or it can be shared by both. The sharing is known as cooperation. The emergence of cooperation is inevitable, for the need for interconnection is built into the human system in many other ways. For example, the cooperation necessary for procreation becomes an immediate hint of the higher, more rewarding approaches. Images of pre-cultural females dragged into the caves  conjure still valid emotional signals that simply could not have allowed the lone wolf lifestyles to continue for long.

Thus, was born the "romantic" concept which still serves as a mystery to many of the male species.

                          Cooperative Morality

     In answer to the connection need, humans begin to develop the mind to include others in the self-concept. This ushered in the secondary cooperative level of conscience wherein self-development, right responses became the moral action choice, in lieu of fight and flight. Thus, the earliest forms of cooperation began to flourish, resulting in shared culture that would bring a lasting condition of interdependence. With cooperation, there is a win-win outcome. Although neither will get all, both will get half. The trade-off of receiving only half the spoils comes from the emotional reward of connection, and in the increased ability to gain through subsequent cooperation.

In fact, what tends to evolve from cooperation is not only the sharing of what is, but a realization that the whole of society can be more than the sum of its parts, providing that the spirit is an invited ingredient.

     At this stage, the higher "group needs" are considered in addition to the basic individual needs. Emotional signals begin to take on the added meaning of self-development of mind and to embrace the group connection need, the need for meaning and the need to achieve esteem-building expressions among others. Loving connection, and the fulfillment from meaningful, creative expression become the dominant motivations as right and light responses become dominant action choices.

Getting beyond the mere acquisition of material items and worldly titles leads to an appreciation of nature, knowledge and the spiritual qualities of other human beings. When allowed and encouraged, this can bring the proverbial heaven down to earth.

     Before this stage is fully attained, some will still choose to compete, while others begin to cooperate. At this transitional state, there is both the chance to win-lose, or to negotiate a win-win. When some trust others to cooperate, and those others breach the trust and compete, win-lose and disruption occurs. In this stage, cooperation is the right and good, the correct moral choice, and those who compete at the expense of the cooperative other are thought of as cheats. Thus, external rules and laws to protect the cooperators from cheats become necessary.

In that delicate stage when the "cheaters" are on the wane but still in control of most of the wealth and power, those who make the rules will favor them. And so long as the methods whereby the "rule-makers" attain and hold their positions are stacked in favor of the wealth/power group, the "cooperators" will be required to make an end-run to tip the balance in their favor. But, eventually, the "100th monkey" principle will prevail, for it is a principle of Universal Law.

     The third and ultimately necessary stage is wherein all  competition between humans gives way to true cooperation: all self-expression is accomplished in the context of cooperation. This is truly civilized morality. All emotional signals are interpreted within all three purposes, and all six needs are accommodated. All major motivations spring from the approach emotional signals and the avoidant ones are rare, corrective and evolutionary signals. In this final stage, each emotional signal is fully understood within the connection between all. To hurt another would equally hurt the self, this is the complete and mature state of moral development. This is the healthy conscience. Violations need not be controlled, because they simply occur only as learning missteps and are met with tolerance, compassion and offers of light.

There are many places in existence right now where much progress has been made toward the above-described ideal state. But these settings are often more rural than urban and the population is much less condensed.

     But transition to this stage is not yet complete. The movement away from fear and anger toward hope and trust is now occurring. Human groupings have not sufficiently embraced the self knowledge, and even enlightened individuals are stymied in their cooperative efforts by a world that embraces and declares competition to be "the way." Spiritual frustration is experienced at every turn. To end this cycle and embrace cooperation, one must understand the necessity of moving from fear, to trust.

...and I very much look forward to the next title: The Role Of Trust.

The Role of Trust

     This macrocosm of humanity can be reduced to the microcosm of moral interactions between two human beings. Interactions will be motivated by pain until pleasure takes its rightful place. Fear is the dominant motivator in the stage of competition. Moving from competition to cooperation is based upon mutual trust. Trust is a necessary perquisite for cooperative moral action. For the cave woman could just as easily have slit the man's throat with his stone knife while he slept, as she could have arisen early to build him a comforting fire.

But, in order for the relationship to survive, it was essential that some level of trust be maintained. Along with this "trust" was the accepted presumption that each cared about the other, sufficiently to maintain the relationship and procreate, going on to establish that trust as a pattern for their offspring to learn and accept.

     Trust is a touchy thing, for in a win-lose competition, one who violates the cooperative trust can nearly always emerge victor of the spoils. Thus, there is always room for violation to exploit vulnerability inherent in trust. It is very easy to take advantage of the trust of another. Yet, it always comes with the price of living in fear, isolation and loneliness, not to mention facing the wrathful anger of the violated one. Fear and the self-preservationary impulse alone never brings true fulfillment until the body's needs are fulfilled in the context of spiritual connection. Despite this fact, those who retain a singular concept of self, and choose to compete and endure such feelings will certainly lose out when competing with groups choosing cooperation. Fear driven strategies will ensure a hellish fearful existence.

The untrusting, lone-wolf personality will never successfully compete with those who know the value of trust and can make it a productive part of their lives. Not only does it lead to cooperation but, more importantly, to an acquaintance with the feeling aspect of human character.

     Until the pleasurable path of trust can be truly embraced, humans are relegated to the transitional stage between fearful competition and faithful cooperation, between self-preservation and self-development, between the purposes of mind and body, with conflicts resulting both internally and externally.

The good news is that while we are still in that "transitional" period we appear to be moving toward "trust" and away from "fear". However, this trend will only continue so long as our faith in the divine nature of all things continues to grow.

     A major influence upon this condition has to do with the economics of scarce resources. When there are insufficient resources to be shared, fear will motivate competition. Resources are most scarce when there is overpopulation, or when communities do not have equitable systems for the freedom and empowerment of their members. Moral progress can also go backwards---when resources are scarce, cooperation gives way to competition. (Since humans have become the dominant species and exercise free will in cultural transformation upon the ecosystem, they have taken on the responsibility to ensure fair allocation of resources to any embodied spirit, of all species, or they will feel the competitive results).

It is only through cooperation that resources can be shared in a way that reduces the competitive atmosphere and reduces the fear and mistrust that tend to creep into relationships. The law of abundance is simply confirmation that nature is in place to supply all of our needs, whether they be material or spiritual.

                           Tit-For-Tat Morality

     Thus, morality is inextricably entangled with opportunity, and these predictable stages can point to the social changes necessary. Until adequate opportunity occurs, however, there will be a rather fixed state of affairs. This state brings a correspondingly predictable stage of morality. One in which there is a stand-off between the negative, competitive and the positive, cooperative impulses where many animal species, and the majority of humanity, is now poised. This pattern can be seen through the entire animal kingdom, wherein varying stages of competitive and cooperative efforts yield the most success for the species.

It is the less spiritually developed of the human species who take their cue from the animal species most preoccupied with the competitive strategies, hence the colloquial expression: "It's a dog eat dog world!" This belief reinforces the type of behavior least admired in humans.

     This pattern is a mish-mash of both, wherein a moral rule of thumb is as  follows: First, attempt cooperation. If the other cooperates, then both can win. Next, if the other chooses to break the trust and compete against you, you will lose to him. But your task is to then withdraw your cooperation with him and deal with another (more honorable) fellow, and the first will lose your help, becoming isolated. Eventually he will come calling again, following a learning experience. Trust again, and if he has truly learned, he will cooperate. The feeling signals all around will reward this more purposeful path, and the group effort will be stronger than any one isolated effort.

This is a good "rule" but not always an easy one to follow, as many will regard this as a weakness on the part of the one who is taken advantage of by the one who has broken the trust. But trust is a two-way street and patience is essential to educating the untrustworthy to the ultimate value of it.

     This pattern is also apparent in the animal community, but they do not have the mental abilities of humans to remember and plan interactions as thoughtfully. The body alone, via the feeling system, guides their choices. In this case, the animal has memory enough to recall only the emotional outcome of the previous interaction. It is very common for such mindless violators to come around again with every intention of perpetuating another violation, for the previous winning of all the spoils felt great. But the duped one also recalls his own emotional outcome, one of sadness over the loss and anger over the violation. He then plans on doing the same himself, perpetuating a violation back upon the violator, in an "I'll show you how it feels" retaliation.

This is where emotion must eventually be put aside or overridden in order to break the eye-for-an-eye rule that can only deteriorate into an environment of never-ending conflict.

     This is called the tit-for-tat strategy that works best when competition has not been completely overcome. In this case, the violator comes calling with an offer of a second cooperation and trusts the first. The first in this case, violates the trust and wins the spoils for himself. The second round often reinforces the soundness of the cooperative choice within the original violator and promotes cooperation in future interactions. Otherwise, fear and anger drives a perpetual cycle of getting even---a deadly habit among humans. Tit-for-tat means simply: First cooperate, and then in any subsequent interaction, do the same as the other formerly did to you.

The best you can say for this strategy is that it has the potential for being educational for those who are in need of learning the value of cooperation from an emotional experience. The danger in it is that the violator may not get beyond anger to a more enlightened state.

     Although tit-for-tat has its place, humans are intended to discover their higher moral guidance. They are not simply limited to the emotional memory of the experience, they can invoke the mind. If the higher purposes are heeded, trust outweighs fear, the connection is preserved, and winning half---plus the emotional reward of connection---brings repeated cooperation that yields far more long-term benefit for all concerned. The less cooperation among all species, the more fear and self-preservation will be apparent. The more spiritual connection that exists, the more trust and cooperation can be observed, and more faith and personal fulfillment is experienced.

Sometimes, a group is encouraged to cooperate in order to exercise and take a competitive and unfair advantage of another group. This moves a less-than-virtuous activity from a singular to a plural mindset and, in doing so, only strengthens a non-spiritual form of conduct.

     Understanding the patterns of competition and cooperation can help individuals determine the moral course of action when dealing with others who are driven by competition alone, as well as underscore the most spiritually rewarding choice of cooperation. It should be readily apparent, however, that humans who keep to their fear-driven competitive level of self-preservation are no more evolved than the animals over which they claim superiority.

When "competition" becomes such a virtue in a society that it is an end in itself, than the only resolution of such an outlook is for the system to have a major breakdown. Because material success is often regarded as the ultimate end and key to happiness, the hardwired qualities in humans lead them to such a consequence on a major scale.

                            The Golden Rule

     With these historical interactions in perspective, we can now see how they led to early forms of moral guidance. This first step from competition to cooperation was captured in the early moral directive: "As ye would that men should do to you, do to them likewise." This reflected the tit-for-tat strategy of the animal kingdom and the human desire to overcome the cycle of retaliation. For to follow this directive, both would initially cooperate rather than to go through a wasteful series of competitive retaliations. This directive is still inherent in most major religions, commonly known as the Golden Rule. It has also been restated:

"Do unto others, that which you would have them do unto you".

     This moral advice has endured because it dovetails with many elements of innate natural morality. The Golden Rule assumes that there are some universal right and wrong behaviors, clearly understandable by all humans---which there are. It assumes that all humans can recognize "rightness" within others and in themselves---which they can through their feeling system. It is right-minded, basing morality upon the emotional evaluation of the act, and the purposeful pursuit of happiness.

It also appeals to everyone's self interest and, thus, ties one's well being to one's own actions. But, one hopes that the other person will agree to and accept the same Code of Conduct.

     But this rule is only part of the picture, and its use as a moral directive is limited. For it assumes that everyone has the same values, which is never the case in a multicultural diverse world. It does not embrace the free will given to each human being to design values and beliefs according to their individual spirit. (What brings happiness to a member of one culture, might bring great unhappiness to a member of another.) It embraces the contrived emotional boundaries which result from lack of continuous development of mind. It honors only those with similar, local values, and does not embrace the entirety of connected humanity. (It is quite easy to do horrible things unto others, if one does not consider certain humans as "others"---witness the Holocaust).

One of the first steps in doing harmful things to another is to dehumanize the other person. Governments are usually very successful in doing this in times of war. It makes it much easier to accept the idea of killing the "enemy" if he is accepted as a "chink" or a "gook". It has made the practice of racism easier when people formed support groups to terrorize segments of the population. Even parts of the bible can be used to justify hate and worked well in many minds for quite some time until "higher" laws prevailed.

     Nonetheless, with some simple variant twists, it can be a far more useful moral tool at the current state of the moral development of the species. The first twist would be to recognize it in the context of all humans, indeed to every spiritual embodiment, not just humans within any specific spiritual grouping. This fully honors the connection need, bringing all spirits together in the self-concept, making it a truly universal dictate.

An example of this might be the acceptance that "All life is sacred." This could lead to a higher level of respect for both humankind, as well as all of nature. Once this connection was made, threats to the environment would become manageable and life on the planet would be more valuable and enjoyable.

     This brings the next essential universal twist which adds far more sweeping application. This flips the rule around to utilize avoidant impulses as universal guidance, using what humans don't like as a guide. Although a wide variety of diverse ideas, strategies and choices, can bring pleasure, it is the truly universal limitations and frustrations of spirit that bring pain. With these added understandings, this golden advice becomes far more useful in the form:

"Do not do unto any others that which pains thyself."

     This most simple of moral guidance allows humans to know in any moment what not to do and it frees the feelings of spirit to lead them toward actions to which they are morally invited---indeed divinely destined.

One need only imagine how one would feel as the recipient of any contemplated action against another, and allow that "feeling" to guide his/her actions henceforth.

     The final word about natural morality is that it suggests that far fewer controls need to be placed upon human beings. Instead, energy and resources should be invested in ensuring that there is adequate opportunity for each member to meet needs without competitive impulses coming to the fore. Humans can simply let go of all ideas about what is right and wrong and allow their spirits to guide them. The self-righteous ones must step aside, taking their cultural judgements with them, and allow each human the dignity, the privacy, and the freedom to pursue happiness in their own way. For vitality and behavior, when chosen within all three purposes, which does not frustrate any of the essential needs, nor intend to consciously violate another, and is chosen within the response rules, is moral in the eyes of the Creator.

We are all familiar with a four-way intersection, controlled by a stop sign at each corner. Each driver waits his/her turn and trusts that when he/she starts into the intersection, it will be safe to do so. Now suppose that the "stop signs" were removed and the rule of common courtesy was in place. Would the system not work just as well? It would be a small step but essential to the building of a less abrasive society.

     With these essentials of right action in place, we can now look more closely at human to human personal interactions.

                               Table of Contents